Re: Adapting Text proposals for next week's survey. (was Re: Adding Greg L's Adapting Text proposals to the Wiki in anticipation of a vote between J&K and H&I)

"tautological" wow... quite the word, had to look it up.

Content provided at an HTTP address which can be consumed by a user agent
is considered content.

However, the intention was not to consider programs etc. that had to be
"downloaded" as content. Your exe file is a perfect example. We tried to
distinguish content from the use case where the internet was used as a
delivery mechanism instead of postal mailing a CD of a program, etc...

The important thing is that web content can be interacted with while at the
http address. The thing that makes PDF and now Word documents content, is
that they are at an HTTP address and can be opened in a browser.

It may not be a perfect definition but it has been sufficient for 15 years
and is sufficiently defined enough that people working in our field have
been able to explain it to our clients the distinction, and they could make
logical decisions. We understand that the delineation of the Web and OS is
becoming increasingly blurred. Perhaps that can be solved in Silver. We've
tried to address some of the blurring with the WCAG2ICT document.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 20/04/2017 16:50, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>
>>
>> On 20/04/2017 16:34, White, Jason J wrote:
>>>
>>>> [Jason] Possibly also Open Document Format (ODF) or Office Open XML
>>>> (OOXML), both endorsed by ISO.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are those really Web Content formats? (I'd even question the inclusion
>>> of PDF in WCAG 2.0, in this respect)
>>>
>>
>> According to the WCAG 2.0 definition, yes they can be.
>>
>
> Assuming you mean https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#technologydef which says,
> to paraphrase, "anything rendered, played, executed by user agents"
>
> and then https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#useragentdef is defined as, to
> paraphrase, "anything that retrieves and presents web content".
>
> isn't that a completely tautological set of definitions?
>
> Doesn't this mean that anything (other than native executables) is
> effectively "Web Content" if it's loaded by a program, and that the program
> then is a "User Agent" since it loaded it? So would a Word/Excel/PowerPoint
> document be "Web Content"? Would a 3DS file be Web Content because it's
> loaded into 3D Studio Max, and therefore 3D Studio Max is a User Agent?
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
>